MISkier

I'm not seeing that 10-11 buoy jump for the drop to 34 mph that was previously mentioned. At 34 mph practice, I'll run -32 on a very good day and get 1 or 2 at -35 on a great day. At 36 mph practice, I'll run -28 on a very good day and get 1 at -32 on a great day. My practice maximums have been 3 at 34/-35 and 4 at 36/-32 - both about 5 years ago. Most of the time, I am mid -32 at 34 mph and mid -28 at 36 mph. However, since I have to spend most of the season at 34 mph to keep my timing for most tournaments, I do not ski enough 36 mph to know if it could be different. My tournament PBs are exactly 6 buoys apart between 34 mph and 36 mph.

@ALPJr, you can only ski in Open or Masters if you have an Elite Rating, so that locks out the average (more or less) skier who just wants to select their most comfortable speed.

@JackQ, I don't think that math works. 3@35 at 34 mph is 93 buoys. 3.5@32 at 26 mph is 69.5 buoys. I think I would still win. If your example was meant to be 3.5@32 at 36 mph, then it would 93.5 buoys. And, I would be fine with losing with my 34 mph score, in that instance, because I believe there is a certain difficulty factor in running the course at a higher speed and it would have been my choice to do it or not. If it wasn't somewhat harder to ski at a higher speed, everyone would be doing it until they're 80 (or older) and start doing it when they are 8.

@JackQ, I think it’s a misconception that AWSA set a handicap. The ZBS matrix is merely the buoys you would have to run to get to specific line length and speed combination. As an exercise, start at the minimum speed and long line, then increase speed until you hit 34 mph and complete long line at that speed. Sum up all the buoys for those passes. Now, start shortening until you reach 100 buoys and see what the rope length is. Do the same approach for 36 mph. It’s is just the math required to progress through each line length and speed incrementation no matter which path you take (faster or shorter). if AWSA is guilty of anything, it is that they actually did not implement any handicap at all and just went with counting buoys and assigning those scores directly without applying any factor. They didn’t invent the math to assign those scores. They just counted and added.

Here is the aforementioned death hashing (it's very, very long):

@Horton, per a text I received today, that CarbonPro listed on SIA is your BOS boat.

@Shell and @RAWSki, is that CarbonPro of yours on Ski-It-Again the former Ball Of Spray boat?

@S1Pitts, I believe that boat is actually a Ball Of Spray official boat. I've skied it and driven back several years ago and liked it. I know the owners and believe it to be well cared for. In fact, I think they were promo boat drivers for Centurion at one point.

@Nashotah, I'm at about the same level as you. Keep your 200. I haven't skied a Ski Nautique with the 5.3, but have skied a 200 with the 5.3 and found it to have an unforgiving calibration that was quite harsh. I think the 6.0 is better. Regarding the original question in this thread, I think the MasterCraft Prostar slalom wake is the best. I am neutral about the Malibu TXi slalom wake and pull - nothing bad, but nothing special and I have mediocre performances with it. The 200 is a reasonable slalom wake - not as good at 22 off as the Prostar and the 6.0 pull is fine. The Ski Nautique is my least favorite slalom wake of current models (it's still better than the MC 197), but the 6.2 calibration and pull is excellent. I do find the Prostar calibration (6.0) and pull a bit soft and I have to select the plus setting (C2+) to get it close to what I like. I will also say that I liked the 2016 TXi better than the 2017-present model - for both driving and slalom skiing. If I recall correctly, my 34 mph PB is with the Prostar and my 36 mph PB is with the 6.2 Ski Nautique, although it's possible that both were with the Ski Nautique.

@A_B should be able to provide info to you.

@MichaelWiebe, buy an inverter with battery cables and you can provide 110V power for your needs. If you aren't planning to use a lot of amps, etc., there are many small inverters that plug into the 12V outlets to provide a single 110V outlet that can easily run some small lights or other small devices.

@Horton, I would think those protruding curves along the shoreline would cause more problems by preventing a line of rollers from diffusing naturally. I've seen another lake with a similar feature along the shoreline that actually has quite busy water at the end with that shape. It's quite problematic and seems to generate rogue roller action rather than allow the wakes to dissipate uniformly.

My rear binding eventually turns itself over time to point more toward the pinky toe side of the back foot, so I assume the back leg is exerting a force that finds such an orientation much more agreeable. I previously corrected and re-aligned the binding when it became quite noticeably shifted, but gave that up a few years ago and accepted it must be necessary. I didn't notice any change in skiing. I have no hip issues, but couldn't say that the binding orientation is or is not a factor.

We handled ours by requiring only online registration for our tournaments. That takes care of ensuring the members are Active and eligible for tournament participation. Related to what @lpskier said, the skiers won't get populated fully in the WSTIMS scoring program unless they are eligible. That said, we did have a couple late stragglers a day or two before the tournament that had to complete all of that (with expediting requests to USA Water Ski to process their updates) in order to get them populated in time for the tournament. We did not accept any walk-ins at the tournaments. I think the general answer is that it is the tournament director and the LOC that sanctioned the tournament who is responsible for ensuring compliance for tournament competitors.

@RAWSki, the last time I was in 52 degree water without a drysuit was the last time I was in 52 degree water without a drysuit.

Can't let today pass without this classic:

I’d probably use a Superior Pump model 91250. I see them on Amazon for about $55. They have a garden hose adapter included. I have one of these to pump antifreeze from a 5 gallon bucket during winterizing and other utility needs. I also have another one as a secondary contingency sump pump with a car battery/inverter setup, an external float switch, and automatic transfer switch to use the inverter source when house power is out.

She also restored her own 1969 Ford Bronco.

At least drain the water from the engine and hoses, including exhaust manifolds. Getting the antifreeze in is probably less important than getting the water out. You may be able to pour some of the antifreeze in through the detached hoses after you drain them. Not sure if an external electric pump (with a hose input and hose output) can pull it through the engine water circulation system or not, but there may be something you can rig up.

Probably the one with the most pro skiers on it.

I tried it. I don't recall any immediate benefit and didn't stay with it. I got much better results by doing my deep water starts with both palms down and ensuring my arms were straight for the pull from from buoy to centerline. Some folks say a bent handle helps, but I was able to correct it without switching from straight handle. I'll get a flare up now and then, but nothing debilitating or chronic and no pause needed during my 6-month season. If I skied year-round, I might have to either look at a bent handle or some of the exercises like Theraband Flexbar, etc.

It's the simultaneous thumping of the boat guides on both pontoons that is distracting.

@Mastercrafter, I believe I was the boat driver for that particular instance. And, if I recall correctly, the skier in question was a first time tournament participant. She had already skied a previous round with a similar or better score than she eventually achieved in that round. So, no harm, no foul.

Jeff RodgersJeff SurdejJeff KepchiaJeff Nate

Jon TraversJohn HortonJohn Wilkins